United States of America v. Vistoso Partners, L.L.C.

Filing 89

ORDER denying 88 Defendant's Motion for Reconsideration. Signed by Judge G Murray Snow on 1/20/12.(DMT)

1

WO

2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

8
9

United States of America,
Plaintiff,

10
11

vs.

12
Vistoso Partners, LLC,
13
Defendant.
14

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. CV-10-444-PHX-GMS
ORDER

15
16

On January 3, 2012, the Court issued its Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law in

17

this action. (Doc. 85). Pending before the Court is Defendant’s Motion for Reconsideration

18

of the Court’s January 3 decision. (Doc. 88). As discussed below, Defendant’s motion is

19

denied.

20

Generally, motions to reconsider are appropriate only if the Court “(1) is presented

21

with newly discovered evidence, (2) committed clear error or the initial decision was

22

manifestly unjust, or (3) if there is an intervening change in controlling law.” School Dist.

23

No. 1J, Multnomah County, Or. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th Cir. 1993). A

24

motion for reconsideration should not be used to ask a court “to rethink what the court had

25

already thought through, rightly or wrongly.” Above the Belt, Inc. v. Mel Bohannon Roofing,

26

Inc., 99 F.R.D. 99, 101 (E.D.Va. 1983)).

27

In the instant case, Defendant contends that the Court’s “Conclusions of Law 7, 8, and

28

9 constitute manifest error.” (Doc. 88 at 1). In essence, however, Defendant’s motion is a

1

request for the court to rethink what the court has already thought through. (See Doc. 88).

2

Such requests should be directed to the court of appeals. Sullivan v. Faras–RLS Group, Ltd.,

3

795 F. Supp. 305, 309 (D. Ariz. 1992).

4
5

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion for Reconsideration
(Doc. 88) is denied.

6

DATED this 20th day of January, 2012.

7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14

.

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-2-